PJM is a shitshow though.
But is is no question: the Apple Silicon chips sip power. If you're looking to minimize watts consumed, a MacBook Air is still on top (or bottom), even if OS X has many pain points too.
Only upside I see out of this huge demand for electricity -- hopefully nuclear will clear the deck on using coal, gas and diesel. If we can build and operate nuclear again we can level our long term cost of power. Combined with renewables its a good combo.
Other than that - power prices will always be derivative to the price of natural gas.
The untapped energy savings is, IMO, getting people to run their climate control less. We should toughen up a bit, tell our brains that 50F-80F is the comfortable range. (Depending on humidity and your workload).
On the gas side, we’re both forcing ratepayers to spend billions on conversion from low to high pressure gas mains AND prohibiting new gas service.
The environmental lobby is so dumb and ineffective - the public will be demanding that coal come back.
Vogtle is the wake-up call needed to get nuclear manufacturing/talent going again. I hear you but I think you are taking the wrong lesson.
I will add -- if indeed prices stay at Vogtle then yes Nuclear is dead. That said there's no way thats the new pricing going forward.
Nuclear is only a fraction as expensive as the regulations around it. My company has a division that deals with the nuclear industry, and I really cannot overstate how incredibly intense they are.
Imagine your company issued laptops and required 14 different "live scanner" security apps running with twice daily full system scans. Now be a productive dev on that system. Would you be surprised if every project runs far over budget and far over timeline?
Nuclear regulatory environment is overly prescriptive. You need nuclear safety but you also can't use regulatory as a mechanism to shutdown all development - which has been the defacto case for the last 40 odd years.
Agree faster timelines are necessary -- we also need to see if this AI thing is real real or if its in over its skis a little bit. At this particular moment it feels like it might be selling more than it is offering - and thereby the energy demand won't materialize in the way that they assume...
Noting -- that the financial backers for energy products aren't all cash cows like tech companies -- they need to see real return on projects before they put up the necessary large amount of money and public-private partnerships given the risk on putting projects together like that.
The UK is in the exact same boat with Hinkley C -- initially licensed in 2012 with a budget of £18 billion, construction starting in 2016 and a completion date in 2025. Now we're looking at £50 billion in cost with 'best case' start dates in 2030. All of that to generate electricity at over $0.20/kwh wholesale.
If we’re looking at choices a person can make, every choice is multiplied by millions when applied to the entire population of a country, so the 1W differences are swamped by the equally scaled 10W differences.
Agree that Cuomo decommissioning the plant was DUMB.
If we’re looking at the things we can do to reduce our individual consumption, it absolutely makes sense to prioritize the things which are large relative to our other individual contributions, first.
On the gas side, Trump's one BBB greatly increased the caps on natural gas exports.
The reality is that the companies extracting NG are not going to be giving it to Americans, they're going to sell it abroad and rake in way more money.
Which would maybe be fine... if we also weren't currently (and severely) artificially limiting the supply of renewables. Um, oops. There's nothing left.
All of our lobbies are fucking stupid.
Of course it depends on the computer, but if we're talking laptops or corpo computers it's like 25 - 50 watts. Supercomputers, like those used for AI, are different of course.